Flemke - Is this your McLaren? (Vol 5)
Discussion
SpeckledJim said:
I'm not convinced by the 'function over form' argument for why it looks so awful.
It's not the first car built primarily for function. Every race car is built (effectively) purely for function.
Yet it's by some margin the ugliest car ever sold for more than, say, £20,000. Including the Bentley Bentayga.
Race cars have to set rules and regs, most racers like GT cars have to represent their road car counterparts so they're limited in that respect.It's not the first car built primarily for function. Every race car is built (effectively) purely for function.
Yet it's by some margin the ugliest car ever sold for more than, say, £20,000. Including the Bentley Bentayga.
Take the new Sauber F1 car, as someone on the other thread posted. It's not pretty, but it's functional
SpeckledJim said:
I'm not convinced by the 'function over form' argument for why it looks so awful.
It's not the first car built primarily for function. Every race car is built (effectively) purely for function.
Yet it's by some margin the ugliest car ever sold for more than, say, £20,000. Including the Bentley Bentayga.
The problem with function over form is that (for me) some of the “function” I expect from a super car is that it looks bloody amazing. It's not the first car built primarily for function. Every race car is built (effectively) purely for function.
Yet it's by some margin the ugliest car ever sold for more than, say, £20,000. Including the Bentley Bentayga.
Sadly not a problem I’m likely to have, but I’d struggle to buy this over the less aesthetically challenged alternatives.
hyphen said:
So that 'stuck on' look tablet in a million quid car 
Why have they not moulded around it to make it blend into the dash?
At least it has some buttons rather than all touch though.
Easier to feel your way around when not looking at it? Able to hold onto the edge with your finger for stable use instead of having a finger hovering over a dash inserted touchscreen bouncing all over the place at every pothole. Why have they not moulded around it to make it blend into the dash?At least it has some buttons rather than all touch though.
FourWheelDrift said:
hyphen said:
So that 'stuck on' look tablet in a million quid car Why have they not moulded around it to make it blend into the dash?
At least it has some buttons rather than all touch though.
Easier to feel your way around when not looking at it? Able to hold onto the edge with your finger for stable use instead of having a finger hovering over a dash inserted touchscreen bouncing all over the place at every pothole. Why have they not moulded around it to make it blend into the dash?At least it has some buttons rather than all touch though.
I guess McLaren are thinking about the things that others aren't....
Swampy1982 said:
I really don't understand the hate for the aesthetics, to my eye a lot of the aero can be hidden by subtle and suitable colour choices, what is it specifically that everyone takes such offence to?
maybe put some animated pictures up to show the specific parts of the car...
I have 'gone on' 'at length' and pissed people off about my dislike for the design and the lack of back up as the 'why' of it in other threads.maybe put some animated pictures up to show the specific parts of the car...
I won't bang on too much here for fear of company directors using rolly eye emjois at me...
But in short - proportion - this car has messed that up - massive front and rear overhangs disproportional to the wheelbase - like a Brera.
I've got no issue with the useof winglets and wings and holes and vents and scoops in the name of ground effect, but when you start off with a silouete like this and then start sticking things on, for me it doesn't matter what glitter you've rolled it in.
I also don't need convincing it'll be a frickin' rocket on track or on any flat piece of tarmac.
McLaren make Amazing machines. 99% of them have been beauitiful too, and not needed media font men to justify anything about it's design.
I mean the 720S is challenging, but it's cohesive and has decent proportions, 650, 540, 570, 675 P1, F1, GTRs to date, have all been gorgeous to my eyes, and boundary pushing, their road cars ascending from zero to hero in segment busting time. I love McLaren, neither a fan boy nor a hater.
(for balance, I don't like the Veyrons' design, the California T, the Mk1 Cayenne or Panamera, the Enzo or F50....Gumpert Apollo.....but each marque ha a whole host of models I do drool over)
The justification that the Senna looks this way in the name of outright performance though is crap - because the GTR version will show this a clean pair of heels...the idea that it's done this way so you can drive it to and from home to the track just means it's now compromised on track and on road.
You don't need the aero on the road, or the large overhangs and risk to carbon fibre pieces from speed bumps and the public. So the 'brutality is unnecessary imo
You don't want road tyres, number plates and the weight that comes from media screens and dhering to road safety legislation when on track...again the GTR will show this.
And to the point about the stuck on screen.,
If a primary control method, for all things media or vehicle set up requires "stabilising edges to provide grip" ffs, then you really need to ask the question: is this the best way to provide control... I don't need grab handles to change the temperature in my car...
ahh....it would appear I have gone on at length. I'm sorry.
Here I'll save you the trouble
Swampy1982 said:
I really don't understand the hate for the aesthetics, to my eye a lot of the aero can be hidden by subtle and suitable colour choices, what is it specifically that everyone takes such offence to?
maybe put some animated pictures up to show the specific parts of the car...
It really needs to be painted in Vantablack.maybe put some animated pictures up to show the specific parts of the car...
Would it be fair to assume that if this car was not road legal, you'd forgive it for its styling? It seems that way?
Yes, it's compromised as a road car, and yes, it's compromised as a track car. But try thinking at it from another view.....a "more pretty" road car is more compromised on the track if you want to track it, and a track car is compromised because you can't use it on the road. If you want something which is blisteringly quick yet still a relatively useable road car, then it begins to make more sense. Whether you like the aesthetics is neither here nor there really.
Yes, it's compromised as a road car, and yes, it's compromised as a track car. But try thinking at it from another view.....a "more pretty" road car is more compromised on the track if you want to track it, and a track car is compromised because you can't use it on the road. If you want something which is blisteringly quick yet still a relatively useable road car, then it begins to make more sense. Whether you like the aesthetics is neither here nor there really.
E65Ross said:
Would it be fair to assume that if this car was not road legal, you'd forgive it for its styling? It seems that way?
Yes, it's compromised as a road car, and yes, it's compromised as a track car. But try thinking at it from another view.....a "more pretty" road car is more compromised on the track if you want to track it, and a track car is compromised because you can't use it on the road. If you want something which is blisteringly quick yet still a relatively useable road car, then it begins to make more sense. Whether you like the aesthetics is neither here nor there really.
Now THAT has more about it... I agree...if this were track only, then hang the looks (awaits GTR)Yes, it's compromised as a road car, and yes, it's compromised as a track car. But try thinking at it from another view.....a "more pretty" road car is more compromised on the track if you want to track it, and a track car is compromised because you can't use it on the road. If you want something which is blisteringly quick yet still a relatively useable road car, then it begins to make more sense. Whether you like the aesthetics is neither here nor there really.
My only caveat would be that there are a myriad of track only cars that would out perform and or have similar levels of downforce that still manage to look half decent.
If I want blisteringly quick on track but useable on the road, I'm still going to add aesthetics into the mix.... you can have it all, and it's been done a lot recently..
Which is why if anyone bought my kidney I'd have an RS Porsche or Performante Lambo or a Pista Ferrari....
Again I'm not denying that like for like this may well blow these others into the weeds, this is all very personal, I certainly couldn't extract the nth degree of performance out of a Senna to go any quicker than I could in an RS....and I'm not suggesting any of the 500 buyers or legion of fans should immediately stop loving this car.
The question asked was why there was such 'hate' for the looks...
I'm just explaining my feelings on it.....again
Quickmoose said:
Swampy1982 said:
I really don't understand the hate for the aesthetics, to my eye a lot of the aero can be hidden by subtle and suitable colour choices, what is it specifically that everyone takes such offence to?
maybe put some animated pictures up to show the specific parts of the car...
I have 'gone on' 'at length' and pissed people off about my dislike for the design and the lack of back up as the 'why' of it in other threads.maybe put some animated pictures up to show the specific parts of the car...
I won't bang on too much here for fear of company directors using rolly eye emjois at me...
But in short - proportion - this car has messed that up - massive front and rear overhangs disproportional to the wheelbase - like a Brera.
I've got no issue with the useof winglets and wings and holes and vents and scoops in the name of ground effect, but when you start off with a silouete like this and then start sticking things on, for me it doesn't matter what glitter you've rolled it in.
I also don't need convincing it'll be a frickin' rocket on track or on any flat piece of tarmac.
McLaren make Amazing machines. 99% of them have been beauitiful too, and not needed media font men to justify anything about it's design.
I mean the 720S is challenging, but it's cohesive and has decent proportions, 650, 540, 570, 675 P1, F1, GTRs to date, have all been gorgeous to my eyes, and boundary pushing, their road cars ascending from zero to hero in segment busting time. I love McLaren, neither a fan boy nor a hater.
(for balance, I don't like the Veyrons' design, the California T, the Mk1 Cayenne or Panamera, the Enzo or F50....Gumpert Apollo.....but each marque ha a whole host of models I do drool over)
The justification that the Senna looks this way in the name of outright performance though is crap - because the GTR version will show this a clean pair of heels...the idea that it's done this way so you can drive it to and from home to the track just means it's now compromised on track and on road.
You don't need the aero on the road, or the large overhangs and risk to carbon fibre pieces from speed bumps and the public. So the 'brutality is unnecessary imo
You don't want road tyres, number plates and the weight that comes from media screens and dhering to road safety legislation when on track...again the GTR will show this.
They will, however, do a genuine racing version, just as McLaren have done with the 12C, 650S, etc. But to say that the racing car version will be faster than the road-legal car that is required to have airbags, a horn, fog lamps, a glass windscreen and other things is not really a fair comparison. It's like saying that a 997 GT3 RS is not as fast around a circuit as a 997 RSR racing car: yes, but that doesn't mean that the RS is not a brilliant example of a track-biased car that is road-legal and also road-driveable in the practical sense, which an RSR isn't.
Re your point about the overhangs, I would approach the question differently. McLaren started out with the tub template of the 720S. That pretty much dictated the wheelbase.
The 720S wheelbase (and I believe the P15 wheelbase, although the numbers have not yet been released) is 2.66m. By way of comparison, the 488 wheelbase is 2.65, the Koenigsegg wheelbase is 2.66, the R8/Huracan wheelbase is 2.62, and the 991 GT3 RS wheelbase is 2.45.
The only "related" cars with wheelbases longer than the 720S's are the Aventador at 2.70 and the Chiron at 2.71, but of course both of them need to house longer engines than the 720S does.
Therefore the starting point for the McLaren is a wheelbase that is already at the far end within its class. It could be made longer, but that would be to sacrifice nimbleness. I am not smart enough to know that 2.66 is ideal, or at the outer edge of what is possible, but I do think it is telling that it was longest within its class already.
Which takes us to the length of the overhangs. There are certainly long, but much of the point of this car is to generate as much downforce as possible (within practical or regulatory limits), and the farther away from the center of pressure the front and rear aerodynamic elements are located, the more leverage they will have and the more downforce they will generate.
One can say that it's a pity that the car is not more attractive than it is, but in fairness the overhangs are what they are not out of the sheer perversity of the stylists. There was a method to the madness.
Having spent now quite a bit of time studying the car, both in pictures and in the flesh, I would still say that it is ugly, but the ugliness is essentially down to two (important) elements: the fences that run from the base of the A-pillars angularly to the front bumper, and the double diffuser. They are both pug-ugly, but at least there were aero justifications for the ugliness.
(Btw, hard though it might be to believe, there actually are a couple places in the bodywork where the forms are nice.)
Quickmoose said:
And to the point about the stuck on screen.,
If a primary control method, for all things media or vehicle set up requires "stabilising edges to provide grip" ffs, then you really need to ask the question: is this the best way to provide control... I don't need grab handles to change the temperature in my car...
I would agree that the screen sticks out like a bit of a sore thumb. I think the reason that it is floating in space is that the default status of the driver will be with him lashed into the bucket seat, and effectively prevented from reaching far forward to operate controls on the dashboard. By bringing those controls back towards the driver, the controls are more accessible as well as being easier to read.If a primary control method, for all things media or vehicle set up requires "stabilising edges to provide grip" ffs, then you really need to ask the question: is this the best way to provide control... I don't need grab handles to change the temperature in my car...
flemke said:
McLaren started out with the tub template of the 720S
For me this is the key point and it somewhat strikes at the heart of the car's claim to be an 'ultimate, no-holds-barred' speed machine. If they were truly trying to achieve this, shouldn't they have started with a blank sheet of paper rather than the naturally compromised / more balanced 720S tub? I assume this was done to keep costs under control.Miscellaneous question Flemke, but are you aware if McLaren have any intention of designing or procuring any new engines? I understand that as a relative newcomer it makes sense to save money by rehashing the same engine for each new model.
Do you feel its time for a new additional engine, to freshen up the brand a bit, as it were?
eta - I have a feeling I may have asked the exact same question aeons ago, so apologies if your memory is better than mine.
Do you feel its time for a new additional engine, to freshen up the brand a bit, as it were?
eta - I have a feeling I may have asked the exact same question aeons ago, so apologies if your memory is better than mine.
Edited by Digger on Friday 2nd March 18:31
NickCQ said:
flemke said:
McLaren started out with the tub template of the 720S
For me this is the key point and it somewhat strikes at the heart of the car's claim to be an 'ultimate, no-holds-barred' speed machine. If they were truly trying to achieve this, shouldn't they have started with a blank sheet of paper rather than the naturally compromised / more balanced 720S tub? I assume this was done to keep costs under control.What they should say is "the ultimate, no-holds barred, road-legal version on the 720S platform". I'm sure they could make a shorter, narrower tub on which to base a faster car. The trouble is it'd be useful only for this car, and therefore hilariously expensive to type-approve on a per-unit cost.
Krikkit said:
Yes, quite.
What they should say is "the ultimate, no-holds barred, road-legal version on the 720S platform". I'm sure they could make a shorter, narrower tub on which to base a faster car. The trouble is it'd be useful only for this car, and therefore hilariously expensive to type-approve on a per-unit cost.
They seem to imply that whilst they started with a 720S tub, they haven't ended with a 720S tub... Now, whether they've only changed a tool or two, whilst the rest remain the same (and of course, that then knocks on to various components that wouldn't need redesign to interface correctly) is another matter.What they should say is "the ultimate, no-holds barred, road-legal version on the 720S platform". I'm sure they could make a shorter, narrower tub on which to base a faster car. The trouble is it'd be useful only for this car, and therefore hilariously expensive to type-approve on a per-unit cost.
flemke said:
I am not sure that they will do a "GTR" in the sense of a pseudo-racing car aimed at the amateur market for private track days, in the manner of Ferrari FXX and P1 GTR.
They will, however, do a genuine racing version, just as McLaren have done with the 12C, 650S, etc. But to say that the racing car version will be faster than the road-legal car that is required to have airbags, a horn, fog lamps, a glass windscreen and other things is not really a fair comparison. It's like saying that a 997 GT3 RS is not as fast around a circuit as a 997 RSR racing car: yes, but that doesn't mean that the RS is not a brilliant example of a track-biased car that is road-legal and also road-driveable in the practical sense, which an RSR isn't.
Do you think Mclaren have a realistic chance of turning out a genuine racing version (GTE seems much mooted around) and actually have a hope of being successful at Le Mans? BoP is going to cut down all their performance advantages and Mclaren are unlikely to be handed the race on a plate by the ACO like Ford as they just don't have the manufacturer clout. And there's the not inconsiderable issue of the non DFI engine burning a lot of fuel compared to the others. They will, however, do a genuine racing version, just as McLaren have done with the 12C, 650S, etc. But to say that the racing car version will be faster than the road-legal car that is required to have airbags, a horn, fog lamps, a glass windscreen and other things is not really a fair comparison. It's like saying that a 997 GT3 RS is not as fast around a circuit as a 997 RSR racing car: yes, but that doesn't mean that the RS is not a brilliant example of a track-biased car that is road-legal and also road-driveable in the practical sense, which an RSR isn't.
NickCQ said:
flemke said:
McLaren started out with the tub template of the 720S
For me this is the key point and it somewhat strikes at the heart of the car's claim to be an 'ultimate, no-holds-barred' speed machine. If they were truly trying to achieve this, shouldn't they have started with a blank sheet of paper rather than the naturally compromised / more balanced 720S tub? I assume this was done to keep costs under control.isaldiri said:
Do you think Mclaren have a realistic chance of turning out a genuine racing version (GTE seems much mooted around) and actually have a hope of being successful at Le Mans? BoP is going to cut down all their performance advantages and Mclaren are unlikely to be handed the race on a plate by the ACO like Ford as they just don't have the manufacturer clout. And there's the not inconsiderable issue of the non DFI engine burning a lot of fuel compared to the others.
One make race series like the XJR-15’s?! 20 of these on a grid would be pretty mega!
Digger said:
Miscellaneous question Flemke, but are you aware if McLaren have any intention of designing or procuring any new engines? I understand that as a relative newcomer it makes sense to save money by rehashing the same engine for each new model.
Do you feel its time for a new additional engine, to freshen up the brand a bit, as it were?
I don't like turbo-charged engines, but these days there is no getting away from them, is there?Do you feel its time for a new additional engine, to freshen up the brand a bit, as it were?
As for the specific design of the engine that McLaren have been using, I certainly do not know enough to judge how to make it "better". The last great engine that I can think of was the Merc M156 ("6.3"), and that was a great engine for many years.
If they were to eliminate completely the turbo lag, and improve the engine note, those changes would be welcome, although I don't think that, in order to achieve those things, a completely new engine would be necessary.
Krikkit said:
NickCQ said:
flemke said:
McLaren started out with the tub template of the 720S
For me this is the key point and it somewhat strikes at the heart of the car's claim to be an 'ultimate, no-holds-barred' speed machine. If they were truly trying to achieve this, shouldn't they have started with a blank sheet of paper rather than the naturally compromised / more balanced 720S tub? I assume this was done to keep costs under control.What they should say is "the ultimate, no-holds barred, road-legal version on the 720S platform". I'm sure they could make a shorter, narrower tub on which to base a faster car. The trouble is it'd be useful only for this car, and therefore hilariously expensive to type-approve on a per-unit cost.
As for narrower, they have widened the P15 bodywork beyond that for the 720S. The wider the bodywork, the more downforce can be generated (at the expense of Vmax, of course). If the FIA were to allow F1 cars to be wider, the teams would make them wider.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff